Go to our Contact page for our office details.
A summary of cases by our Corporate Advisory team for the month of May.
This case emphasises the importance of taking all potential scenarios (including, in this case, the early and unexpected death of a shareholder) into account when drafting exit and valuation provisions for a shareholders’ agreement for a start-up company that may take a few years to generate value.
ILS Rehab Pty Ltd (Company) had 3 directors who also each held one share in the Company. When one of the directors (Mr Borg) died on 6 March 2015, a dispute arose as to the construction of the provisions in the shareholders’ agreement relating to the price to be paid by the surviving shareholders for Mr Borg’s share.
The shareholders’ agreement provided as follows:
White J in the Supreme Court of New South Wales firstly ordered rectification of clause 13.1.1 to read: The purchase price shall be equal to the percentage shareholding of the outgoing Shareholder in the Company multiplied by 3 x EBITDA.
The key question was then whether the reference in the definition of EBITDA to “immediately preceding financial year’ was to the financial year immediately preceding the death of Mr Borg (in which case the purchase price would be nil or only nominal consideration as EBITDA in that year was negative), or the financial year immediately preceding the time for completion of the purchase of Mr Borg’s share under clause 13.1.
White J found that it was the date of death that determines which financial year is the immediately preceding financial year, and that the purchase price for Mr Borg’s was therefore only nominal. White J rejected the argument that if the event of death was the trigger date (as opposed to the date on which a notice of sale was given under the general sale process for shareholders wishing to sell shares under the shareholders’ agreement), there would be no contractual mechanism to determine when the purchase was to take place, finding that:
White J was not persuaded by the complaint that this caused hardship because the Company was a start-up that was only just becoming profitable. Rather, White J emphasised that the parties had contracted for relative certainty (as opposed to applying a potentially complex valuation exercise if the goodwill or future prospects of the Company were to be taken into account) and Mr Borg’s administrators did not rely upon hardship as a separate defence to a claim for specific performance (nor was there evidence that would support any such defence).
The Supreme Court of New South Wales has provided some valuable insights into the nature, content and relevant parameters of the duties of directors under sections 180, 181 and 182 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) (and the corresponding general law duties), as well as shareholder ratification as a defence to a claim for breach of duty.
FAL Healthy Beverages Pty Ltd (FAL HB) and its subsidiary FAL Retail Pty Ltd (FAL Retail) brought proceedings against Mr Tim Xenos for breach of statutory duties under the Act and fiduciary duties in connection with several unauthorised transactions which benefited him financially.
Mr Xenos was the director (for some periods by formal appointment and for some periods as a de-facto director) and chief executive officer of both FAL HB and FAL Retail and held a 2.5% share in FAL HB. At the time of his appointment as chief executive officer and for a considerable time thereafter, Mr Xenos was an undischarged bankrupt and was prohibited from managing FAL HB and FAL Retail under section 206B of the Act.
Black J in the Supreme Court of New South Wales held that on the evidence, Mr Xenos had, in breach of his duties, caused FAL HB (and in some cases, FAL Retail) to make unauthorised payments to:
The evidence also showed that Mr Xenos was the sole signatory on all of FAL HB and FAL Retail’s bank accounts and that he authorised payments through the NAB Connect platform and in some cases, generated false or at least misleading invoices.
In finding that Mr Xenos had breached his duties under section 180 (to exercise care and diligence), section 181 (to exercise his powers and discharge his duties in good faith in the best interests of FAI HB and FAL Retail and for a proper purpose) and section 182 (to not improperly use this position to gain an advantage for himself or someone else, or cause detriment to FAL HB or FAL Retail) of the Act, and his corresponding general law duties, Black J observed that: